Intergovernmental relations and the effectiveness of local governance
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852307075689 |
| Author | Rob Gilsing |
| Date | 01 March 2007 |
| Published date | 01 March 2007 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Intergovernmental relations and the effectiveness of local
governance: the case of Dutch youth policy
Rob Gilsing
Abstract
In the Netherlands, national government sets the frameworks for youth policy,
while local government should play a crucial role in realizing national goals. Local
government is supposed to be better equipped for realizing effective policies. Yet
national government tries to influence local policies. Furthermore, local govern-
ment’s role in general has changed significantly because of the shift towards
governance. The questions raised are whether local government is capable of
pursuing effective governance in youth policies and how national policies affect
the governance role of local government. These questions are answered by an
extensive examination of youth policy in 72 municipalities and by assessing
national policy on its possible impact. The results suggest that national policy
strongly affects local youth policy, both by setting the agenda as well as by
frustrating local governance. Diffuse defined responsibilities and strong mutual
dependencies create a complex, interwoven policy arena that impedes effective
policies.
Points for practitioners
The lesson for modelling intergovernmental relations that can be drawn from the
Dutch case is that especially in a complicated policy field, national government
should acknowledge the intricate position of local government in local govern-
ance structures. The ambition towards effective local governance requires an
integrated policy approach and a customized policy, and this asks for optimal local
policy discretion. For intergovernmental relations, this implies a role for national
government — if any — in determining the desirable policy outcome. Besides,
national government should rely on communicative policy instruments to support
Dr. Rob Gilsing is senior research fellow at the Social and Cultural Planning Office (SCP) in The
Hague, The Netherlands.
Copyright © 2007 IIAS, SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)
Vol 73(1):45–64 [DOI:10.1177/0020852307075689]
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
local governance and optimize financial discretion. However, the awareness that
intergovernmental relations are a major factor determining policy discretion, and
that software politics suit better than traditional politics is apparently not wide-
spread in national government. Or is the real cause of the problem to be found in
a fear of devolving power and power resources to local government? Is there a
lack of trust in the capability of local government and local actors? If this turns out
to be the case, we probably have to take the highly interwoven administrative
relations for granted. The ambition for an integrated policy approach should then
be loosened, permitting a possible loss of effectiveness.
Keywords: customization, decentralization, integrated policy, multilevel
governance, policy goals, policy instruments, responsiveness
1. Introduction
In most western countries, the position of local government has in recent decades
grown in importance. This development is to a fair extent brought about by pro-
cesses of political decentralization (or devolution). In addition, there are at least two
accompanying, partly interdependent developments. First, the role of local govern-
ment has changed. Several authors have observed a shift from ‘local government’ to
‘local governance’ (i.e. Rhodes, 1997; Pierre and Peters, 2000; Van Heffen et al., 2000;
John, 2001; Bovaird et al., 2002; Goldsmith, 2005). As Denters and Rose (2005: 253)
put it, ‘public decision-making concerning local issues increasingly involves multi-
agency working, partnerships and policy networks which cut across organisational
boundaries’ (see also Kickert et al., 1997). Second, different levels of government
have increasingly become enmeshed in partnerships (Hesse and Sharpe, 1991: 616).
There has been a tendency towards complex (vertical and horizontal) patterns of
multilevel governance (cf. Goldsmith, 2005).
A major question is how local government performs under these changing
circumstances. Are its policies more effective than central policy, as supposed by the
protagonists of decentralization? (Cf. Denters and Rose, 2005: 262.) How does local
government cope with its position in the field of local governance? And how do the
changed intergovernmental relations affect the performance of local government,
or in general, local governance? How is local government handling its ‘ineridicable
ambiguity’? (Page, 1991: 2, see also Baldersheim and Ståhlberg, 2002: 74): the
always present tension between the autonomy of local government on the one hand
and its dependency on national government on the other. These questions have until
now scarcely provoked empirical studies (Fleurke and Willemse, 2004; Pollitt, 2005:
383).
In this article, these questions will be addressed in one particular case: youth
policy in the Netherlands. For two reasons, this case is of special interest. First, youth
policy is a cross-cutting policy field, characterized by fragmentation, departmentaliza-
tion and increased external dependencies. These features imply major obstacles for
effective governance (Denters and Rose, 2005: 253–4). Dutch national government
expects local government to fulfil a role as ‘régisseur’ or director of local policy — to
manage networks around youth policy (Kickert and Koppenjan, 1997). It should focus
46 International Review of Administrative Sciences 73(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial